The self-proclamation of various commercial establishments, restaurants, and housing projects as “pet friendly” is on the rise. Some do so out of a genuine commitment to animal welfare, while others simply use it as a “business strategy” to attract more clientele. The truth is that, a few years ago, a framework for accrediting businesses as “pet friendly” was developed by the Institute of Technical Standards of Costa Rica (Instituto de Normas Técnicas de Costa Rica - INTECO) in partnership with an expert foundation in animal psychology. They subject companies to a rigorous evaluation process consisting of several core areas to verify whether or not they meet the necessary conditions to admit pets into their premises, moving beyond merely making them feel “welcome.”

However, these certifications and processes (which, in the end, also turn out to be used as a “business” by many) do not guarantee “zero risk” to consumers, pets, or the accredited business, let alone exempt them from liability. Furthermore, it is legally ineffective to use signage to attempt to unilaterally disclaim liability, as has been repeatedly ruled in various cases involving theft or damage to vehicles and personal belongings in parking lots. The trite phrase stating “The administration is not responsible” is nothing more than a meaningless gesture.

Regarding the unfortunate incident where a dangerous breed of dog recently attacked a minor at a renowned (“pet-friendly”) shopping center, several angles concerning civil liability arise that deserve attention, moving beyond certifications, protocols, insurance policies, criminal liabilities, and the common sense of both the dog owner and the shopping center's administration.

For a long time, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) has conducted various case-by-case analyses regarding the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of merchants. Merchants must respond if a consumer (or even a “potential consumer”) is harmed by reason of a good or service, due to inadequate or insufficient information provided about them, or due to their use and associated risks. A business can only be exempted from liability if it demonstrates, clearly and convincingly, that it was entirely unrelated to the damage, whether due to the actions of the victim themselves or due to an irresistible and unforeseeable event of force majeure.

Thus, we are facing a type of strict liability that, in turn, intertwines with elements of tort law (responsabilidad civil extracontractual) provided under Article 1045 of the Civil Code (Código Civil): “He who, through malice (dolo), fault, negligence, or imprudence, causes damage to another, is obligated to repair it along with the corresponding losses.”

This also incorporates the created risk theory (teoría del riesgo creado), which postulates that anyone who creates, exercises, or profits from a lucrative activity that presents potentially dangerous elements to others must also bear its disadvantages and, therefore, respond for any damage caused. In this regard, a business must always seek to provide the highest degree of information and the lowest degree of risk to its clients. The matter of civil liability is highly complex and must be treated with total seriousness, good faith, and transparency. Above all, it requires strategic professional counsel tailored to the specific characteristics and burdens of proof (cargas probatorias) of each case.